“To paraphrase someone smarter than me, who still knows nothing, the philosophical task of our age is for each of us to decide what it means to be a successful human being.

I don’t know the answer to that, but I would like to find out.

=

James Othmer <from the book ‘The Futurist’>

—–

Being a successful human being. I don’t know the answer to that and I would like to find out.

What do I like about this?

It isn’t necessarily a positive statement … just a hopeful one. With a dash of ‘realistic’.

Yet. Absolutely aspirational.

It is about seeking without being overtly motivational. It is almost acerbic … but truthful and openly honest in its regard to ‘self.’

This also brings to mind something called ‘mental contrasting.’Mental contrasting is contrary to positive thinking. In fact, the research suggests convincing yourself <all that positive psychological mumbo jumbo> is suggesting to yourself that life is meant to be easy which actually just makes it appreciably harder.

As I have pointed out in past articles … the best way to make personal progress is to balance optimism with some pessimism. Please note … that is different than ‘realism’ in that in the balancing you take some fairly risky steps based on optimism and the pessimism keeps you focused on some practicality. Realism is just some mumbo jumbo non-stance for deciding to reside in the wretched hollow of what is in between optimism and pessimism <doing nothing and taking no chances>.

What does mental contrasting have to do with ‘being a successful human being’? It actually means the whole idea that picturing the future you desire makes it more likely you’ll attain it is wrong.

Again and again research has shown that making a fantasy of something you want can make it harder to achieve in reality.

Imagine receiving a windfall of cash … and you’ll be less motivated to engage in the kinds of activities that might bring you money.

Now. There’s nothing wrong with a bit of positive daydreaming if it makes you feel good as long as you don’t expect anything more than feeling good.

But the search for the answer of what it takes to be a successful human being is way more complicated than some trite soundbite.

It’s not passion.

It’s not happiness.

It’s not really any one word known in the human language.

It’s a feeling.

And maybe that’s where I struggle with all the trite ‘self-help’ and motivational and Life coaching stuff because here is all I really know about becoming a successful human being.

Sometimes you come to a place where there are no right decisions and all paths lead to bad ends.

It sucks. But … there you are.

And you still must choose your way.

Now. You may not think you know how to make that choice but you do. Often you think you don’t know how because you look at it all in the wrong way. The question is rarely “what should I do? … but rather ‘who do you want to be.’

And , in fact, you do know how to choose because when you think about it a little, but really hard <maybe in the harsh light>, because you recognize you cannot control everything that will result from your actions … you can only control the actions themselves. Therefore you shove all the other crap off to the side and ask maybe the only question you need to ask at this ‘make a choice’ point:

If you died down one chosen path … how would you want to be remembered?

Realistically many times part of choosing a path is ultimately having to walk down a path you have never walked before. And hoping the shit you will face … you will face well.

Uhm. But you cannot be sure because, well, you have never faced it before.

Therefore I bring up a version of dreaming. Back to that thing called mental contrasting.

Mental contrasting actually seems to retain the most useful part of positive fantasizing. Mental contrasting helps you envision and clarify what you want by mentally reminding you how good it can feel to attain something. But it also builds upon the motivating power of knowing what you have not yet attained … that you have some serious ground to cover.

Does this prepare you for the ‘who you want to be’ hard choices? Shit. Nothing truly prepares you for that, but at least you have thought about it and hopefully that eliminates some of the more unpleasant surprises. Mental contrasting also is a very individualistic dreaming type exercise. Putting you <mentally> in positions and clarifying what you need to do.

I say that because being a successful human being is an “I” thing not an external thing.

—

“I don’t need anyone to hold me, I can hold my own.”

Ani DiFranco

—

Anyway. In the end. Trying to decide what is a successful human being is hard and, most likely, indescribable. Yup. Indescribable.

Oh. There is a Russian word for that.

===

Ничто́

—

It means … well … nothing, not a thing, (not) anything <pronounced: [neesh-TOH]

===

There are no words to describe a successful human being. Yeah, yeah, yeah … we toss around a lot of words — purpose, meaning, etc. — but they all seem ‘less than’ they should. Why? Well. Because the concept of deciding what it means to be a successful human being is an indescribable thing. That said. We will continue to try and put words to it so that people have something to aim for. Find some words so that at the end of the day a person can hold up and point to.

Aw. Nuts. Yeah … I say ‘nuts’ to that.

Let’s stop trying to describe what is indescribable.

Being a successful human being is defined by you, with no words, because it is made up of choices & character.

And while we would LOVE to label it with a nice simple word these are the type of things that are bigger than any word you can find in a dictionary.

All I really know about becoming a successful human being is you just gotta make some choices along the way in your search for that undefinable thing called ‘success as a human being.’

Ok. More than nuts. I cannot tell you how many times people confuse the concept of a brand with product, name, service, advertising or marketing (just to name a few).

Oh. About “name.” Yeah. Name. It seems just because someone has decided to call their product or service something (let’s call it a ‘label’ or, better, how about “Jake” as a code word) they immediately start calling it a brand <insert an ‘aaargh’ here with multiple exclamation points>.

Sometimes it seems there is no understanding of the word, the process, or the original intent behind the concept of ‘brand’. I would like to think it is an indication of the invasion of amateurs (or the apocalypse because I keep looking for those signs) into the marketing industry, but, alas, it is not so.

Even some of the sharpest minds in the marketing world have fallen into the brand buzzword trap in an attempt to simply stay even with the less knowledgeable.

Ok. Maybe it is just me, but what I just typed seems a sign of insanity — where the brightest have to play by the rules of the ignorant to be heard. It’s the kind of stuff that really does drive me nuts <and one would think others>. The “b word” is tossed around so carelessly it has diminished and degraded its value.

Brand is an important little word. For those of us who have spent significant portions of our lives taking innovative products and service and guiding them into a position where they could even qualify to be considered a brand by the finicky user world the misuse and distortion of this little B word undermines us and our abilities.

Over time, Jake has assumed some character the someones have gotten attached to (trust, reliability, strength, etc.) and, well, Jake is a brand.

So. In reality a brand isn’t really a brand until it exists in some way within the hearts and minds of consumers.

By the way <part 1>. Jake can become a brand without advertising or extensive marketing (there are some nice examples of that) as long as enough people ‘interact with/buy from’ what the company offers day in & day out.

By the way <part 2>. If you have a consistently good product/service, becoming a brand is inevitable (or we would face a world of generic products and services with limited selection and little motive for innovation).

The key … the underlying ‘thing’ I am trying to point out … is that this ‘brand’ has been built upon some piece of information or usefulness (functional value) grounded in some company consistency (culture/values/attitude). At some point early on people were educated about something to do with that particular product or service until ultimately the relationship reverses – the brand stands for that education communicated rather than the product or service. The good news? It is a proven fact consumers will pay a premium for a product or service where someones call ‘Jake’ a brand.

It starts with a good product and elevates that product to the status of “brand” by making the consumer aware of product benefits, forming perceptions to wrap around the product (some positive and some negative), and stimulating trial, repurchase and ongoing purchases. In the end that true value is the brand.

Ok.

The Myth of Building Brands

Let me start simply.

A great brand is a great product or service that people have developed a strong emotional connection with.

Hmmmmmmmmm … that said … it seems like we should be writing less books about “brands” and “branding” and instead investing energy in writing books about building sustainable products and services <just a thought>.

Here is a marketing truth. You don’t build a brand <that is the Myth>. You build a meaningful product or service <or a company that creates those types of things>.

Oh. And contrary to the dictionary definition of the word brand, putting a label (or a Jake) on a product does not make it a brand (but it helps to give it a Jake rather than simply say “pork rinds”).

Oh. Creating a website or running an ad doesn’t do it either.

A product only becomes a brand when the consumer/users (the someones) say so. When they associate a benefit and a set of values (that combination is key). Not until then. The process of ‘branding’ (and I hate that phrase but I assume it is a marketing campaign or activity which highlights what makes Jake a brand) is typically a complex, lengthy, sometimes expensive process. But. It sure would be a boatload easier to simply avoid saying “branding” and call it “building a marketing plan for Jake.”

<Oh. And why do I have to say the intent is to attain brand status…because…when isn’t that the intent or objective? … oh … silly me>

We are far too quick to call something a brand. I would suggest the true test of a brand is if it can cross generations. Until that time, maybe it is simply a ‘generational brand’ or at its worst simply a ‘fad.’ Many companies-brands do ‘get it’ and are doing the right things – for now that is. Crossing generations is about stewardship. Does the transition to new leaders (the next steward) mean losing focus (meaningless reinvention) or guiding to the next level of relevance (and maintain the brand status)?

In the end.

Great brands are inevitably companies that maintain operational excellence by delivering superior <or just distinct> products meeting expectations day in and day out … and having employees that embrace the vision day in and day out. Operational excellence and centered employees. Everything else falls apart <sales and marketing and culture … even your desired ‘brand’> if that core isn’t solid.

Wavering operationally creates cracks that have seismic effects externally. And, ultimately, when that wavering occurs it becomes a prime example of a “failed brand” <or a ‘dead Jake’ in Bruce terms>.

A lot of bad thinking is being shared under the guise of ‘branding’ these days. My advice is to worry less about ‘brand’ and more about consistently delivering a great product/service wrapped up in some personality day in and day out.

Ok. Occam’s Razor. You know … “the simplest explanation is usually the best one.”

Developed by 14th-century English Franciscan friar William of Ockham, Ockam’s Razor <more commonly spelled Occam’s razor>, suggests one should seek the ‘more economical solution.’ What he actually wrote <in Summa Logicae 1323> was “it is futile to do with more what can be done with fewer.”

Well.

This fabulous concept has been hijacked, twisted into a pretzel and, in general, bastardized under the insidious guise of ‘common sense’ logic. It has been hijacked under the whole idea that ‘freedom’ is more often found in simplicity … or the simplest explanations … and , therefore, in a way those who use the concept in a misguided way are … well … bastardizing Life itself <and screwing up business in the business world>.

Yeah. Somehow … somewhere … someone decided that good ole Occam’s razor could be used day in and day out as ‘common sense living.’

I would point out that Ockham himself, a philosopher, wasn’t a big fan of simplistic common sense.

I would further point out that Ockham’s razor theory was based on … all things being equal … the simplest explanation is usually the best one.

I would also point out that by “simple” … Occam’s razor is really referring to the theory with the fewest new assumptions.

And, in fact, I would also point out that inevitably there are times when the simplest explanation for a given set of observations is, well, wrong.

Occam’s razor never claims to determine the truth or untruth of something. It only identifies the things we should logically consider and evaluate. Common sense, under the guise of simplicity, far too often strips … well … an idea, a concept, a process & a theory … of the texture & hues of which they should be judged.

The truth is that black, or white, is overrated … as in ‘this is a black or white thing.” The most interesting things and, frankly, the most effective ordinary things & ideas are neither black nor white … nor even gray.

Complexity is a colorful idea & thought.

Therefore. Should we view Occam’s Razor the way skeptics use it we would find that their ‘one explanation is more likely’ not only doesn’t mean it is a common sense black & white issue, but it also tends to mean that the ‘common sense solution is not only not common nor of sense’. More importantly, common sense also commonly suggests the incorrect solution.

Skeptics <or ‘simplify or die’ seekers>, in their attempt to simplify everything, treat Occam’s Razor as if it were an actual “Law of things” and use it to enable denying any rational claim, no matter how valid, based on … well … common sense. Occam’s Razor is not a ‘law’ … simply a ‘rule’ of thought or a principle for which to think about things.

Look. It was not meant to be anything associated with ‘common sense.’ Instead it was about making choices and deductions economically. Occam’s razor was never meant for paring everything down to some beautiful simplistic core of truth.

The truth is that most things are, unfortunately, difficult and messy. And, yes, I can absolutely see why someone would gravitate to the good ole razor with the intent to simplify. But Ockham’s razor was not intended to cut away anything & everything or eliminate logic … it simply suggested that when everything is done, when everything has been thought of, and if all things were equal … you should look to the most economical solution as the one which made the most sense.

No, not common sense, but rather ‘the most sense.’

Or. As Tao Ching said … “seek simplicity, grasp the essential.’

Occam’s razor does not mean eliminating the essential … no matter how complex or burdensome the essential it is.

Why? Well. We certainly do not want to make things more complicated than they need to be, but you also do not want to simplify so much that losing something essential ends up ‘under complicating’ things. And this is where common sense and the whole simplicity thing really screws up good ole Occam & the razor.

Pretty much any great theory, any great concept, any great idea … has to incorporate what I would call ‘intentional simplification.’ That is intentionally ignoring some things <some effects or causes of things> not because they do not exist or do not actually happen, but because they do not have any impact or much of an impact on the final outcome. Conversely, this means some idiot <or a bunch of them> are going to wander around picking up all the non essential things and say “common sense suggests your conclusion is flawed because you ignored these things.”

WTF.

“I purposefully, intentionally, ignored them … as meaningless in the grander scheme of things.”

In some absurd version of their world their ‘simple common sense facts’ … well … over complicate things. They use Occam to … holy shit … complicate things. Uh oh. They actually use common sense to … holy shit part 2 … complicate things.

Yeah. That may be the paradox that ‘common sense’ struggles with – sometimes the simplest explanation is complex and maybe even ambiguous.

Look.

Occam does not nor should it take sides on any given issue.

Occam does not nor should it shame a complex issue out of existence.

People who ignorantly wield Occam’s Razor often seem to be unaware of this.

To wield it incorrectly is a lazy tactic at best.

To wield it incorrectly is usually a reflection of ignoring the crucial question … whether there really is a need for the questioning.

Shit. That alone is Occam’s largest suggestion … should I slice away questioning what is?

Anyway.

Where the lazy Occam users gain confidence is that Occam, at his core <albeit I did not know him personally> was a nominalist maybe even a minimalist. But even the most simplistic minimalist recognizes that analysis of anything truly worthwhile is likely to be incredibly complex — even at its simplest.

While I love simplicity, I will admit, the utility of Occam’s Razor is highly questionable. I fear that its misuse flippantly eliminates the useful by selecting over-simplified competitors. Occam’s razor is simply a heuristic or rule of thumb which should be used to guide discussion but not to offer a solution. All it does is to encourage us to favor, among otherwise equivalent theories or hypotheses, those that make the fewest unwarranted assumptions.

It is not a law.

It is not a scientific principle.

It cannot justify a position in and of itself.

It does not represent common sense.

Maybe everyone should remember only one thing about Occam’s razor that really matters — the razor analogy refers to “shaving off”or cutting from the theory those variables or concepts that are superfluous & non-essential and only create unnecessary complications. Maybe everyone should remember before they invoke Occam’s Razor as common sense that it is more important to identify ‘the essential’ as true common sense decision making.

In the end?

“I have tried in my own way to be free.”

Far too often people do so by attempting to simplify. They assume, through common sense, that less is better & less is more. And, in some ways, that is true, but not at the expense of what is essential & needed. Complexity is a Life truth. Freedom of choice, of living or … well … almost anything is more often found in an “economical truth” and not in a ‘simplistic truth.’

This is about disruption and business. This is one of my favorite words & topics. It is one of my favorites for two reasons.

First is that it is an overlooked way to be successful in the marketplace. Far too often businesses simply seek to “compete.” They are satisfied with standing in the ring and bludgeon each other all the while suggesting that this is “smart fighting giving me an edge.” It is not. Shit. “Edges” <in this case> is simply staying in the fight and not a plan to win a fight. Disruption is all about wins and winning.

Second. It is one of the few words in business that if you actually deign to use in a meeting or business discussion will draw a visceral response from your audience. From a ‘fun’ perspective it is maybe even more fun than farting in the middle of a presentation.

Anyway.

Disruption, or disrupt, is an emotive word often creating a very unsettling image. And it is a topic which typically scares the shit out of most businesses <and business people>. The excuses to ‘not being so disruptive’ are too long to list … and some are quite creative. But suffice it to say … almost every excuse is grounded in fear.

Yeah.

All those “whoa … slow down on that whole disruption talk” people may suggest ‘it is expensive to do something like that’ but they are simply shaping excuses in their heads & mouths because the whole thought of disrupting anything … well … scares the shit out of them.

Now.

To be clear on definitions <and purpose> … the aim of disruption is to frame <or reframe> a business <or a brand> so that the market sees it differently. Well. I could suggest it is actually simply turning around and facing reality.

——-

“At some point you just have to turn around and face your life head on.”

Chris Cleave

—–

What I mean by that is disrupting is most typically simply attacking some conventional thinking and tapping into what people really think <when they actually think about it>. And many times it is really common sense stuff. It is common sense because it is many times rooted in the fact we just get stuck either in ‘that’s the way its done’ … or maybe we have become so numb to the fact we have bolted on crap to the brand <or company> in day to day attempts to keep it relevant that it is almost unfamiliar to what people originally thought of it <we just made it too complex or complicated>.

Please note … this whole disruption thing, while I love it, is not my idea.

Jean Marie Dru, the Chairman of TBWA has been talking about the power of “disruption” since the early 1990s. His book, Disruption: Overturning Conventions and Shaking Up the Marketplace, is a must read for anyone who likes this shit <and it is actually a delightful read for a business book>. Interestingly … even Tom Peters <the ‘in search of excellence’ guy> thought the concept of disruption was topical … even decades ago.

——

“Disrupt or be disrupted. Disrupt or die.

Disruption is the most powerful idea in business today.”

Tom Peters

——

I tend to believe disruption gets a bad rap because it implies wholesale change. Like as in throw out everything and start from scratch. Au contraire. Disrupting is always about leveraging off of something existing. You may turn everything upside down … but you are still using some existing pieces <some existing attitudes & behavior> from which your idea will end up tapping into. I say that to remind everyone that something from nothing equals the same thing as nothing from nothing … uhm … nothing. Smart, or intelligent, disrupting is always about something from something.

——

“If in a company you change nothing, you are sure to fail. If you change everything you are sure to fail as well.

So the art of winning resides in your capacity to draw the fine line between what should be changed and what should not.

Same for a brand. All brands are in transition. You can’t build brands by thinking only in a linear way. You have to think of larger futures for them. And to do that, you have to use your imagination. A larger share of the future very seldom comes from an extrapolation of the present.

And that is what Disruption is all about. Disruption is about discovering new futures.”

=

Jean Marie-Dru

——

Let’s be honest here. New futures sound frickin’ awesome.

Uhm. Here’s the problem. Futures are not guaranteed, are they?

Doh.

Success is getting people to think and act differently. <doh again>

That translates into … yikes … change.

Here is the good news about this whole disruptive change topic. Effective disruptive thinking is not some blind irresponsible thinking. It takes into consideration all the levels of change it effects and addresses them.

—–

“Disruption demands that a company challenges conventional behaviors and finds a new way to act.

If you analyze the behavior of the category in question you will see conventional patterns of activity are apparent on four levels: corporate, marketing, communications and the customer’s point of view. Some of these conventions are invariably good and necessary, while others are not.

The opportunity lies in seeing how a brand can use its strengths to do something less conventional to change its path and accelerate growth.”

=

Matt Shepherd-Smith, CEO, TBWA\London

—–

To be clear. There is truly a difference in disruption and intelligent disruption. Disruption in and of itself … without thought … is meaningless destruction creating chaos. Intelligent disruption leads change from what exists rather than reacting to what exists and … well … creates something new <not chaos>.

Anyway.

Here are few more thoughts by Jean-Marie Dru about brand building and the importance of disruption:

—

– Disruption is creating something dynamic to replace something that has become static.

– I have always believed that a brand has to evolve. It cannot remain motionless. The same, of course, applies to companies.

—

While all those words sound inspiring and thoughtful and … well … what business person WOULDN’T want to do that? Well. Disruption actually is linked to another word which business people tend to really really dislike … destruction. Destruction of the conventional … the comfortable. Conventions train us to do the conventional. And because it is conventional … we tend to not really think about this shit.

Uhm. Yes. Accepted beliefs, where everyone is thinking the same, usually means no one is really thinking. This all translates into destroying some of the accepted beliefs … uhm … which means destroying … well … familiarity.

Yet … within destruction there should be a surge of energy <from people and a business perspective because disruption is actually both strategy and action>.

What do I believe <see: “know”>?

Too much business thinking today is satisfied with maintaining the status quo.

This is doomed thinking. Thinking is at its best when used as a sharp weapon and used to transform business and the way people think <and do things>. Far too much thinking <and the tactics which arise from that thinking> look the same, say the same, and … well … do the same.

All of which simply makes it easier to be ignored.

Worse?

It doesn’t respect people’s intelligence or their sense of <thinking> adventure. Therefore disruption incorporates destructing some of ‘what is.’

Not just for the sake of destruction but rather with the intent to be singular, extraordinary, and even world-changing is inspiring and interesting and adventuresome. Disrupting is done with the intent to stand out from the crowd and get noticed in a way that fundamentally changes perceptions. I imagine I could quite simplistically suggest that great disruptive thinking challenges the prevailing ideas of the present, therefore, disruption sounds difficult, unsettling, painful and fundamentally frightening.

Why would anybody disrupt, and destroy, on purpose?

Well.

Here is the contradiction … you are actually destroying to create.

=

It’s about creation – creating something dynamic to replace something that has become static.

Disruption is about systematically breaking through the barriers that shape and limit standard business approaches. It’s about challenging conventional wisdom and imagining new possibilities. It’s about destroying the assumptions and biases that get in the way of fresh and visionary ideas.

<Jean Marie-Dru>

=

This actually means that the other thing where disruption gets a bad rap is that it is used as a verb … when it is actually a noun when done correctly.

Yup. Because disruption is actually a destination … a vision of what could, and should, be … against which all strategic and marketing decisions are measure. This means that disruptive ideas are simply ways to get to the vision as fast as possible.

This also means that you are taking a stand. A stand for not what is … but what will be. You are changing the rules <and frankly doing so in your favor>.

To be clear.

Disruption is not anarchy <nor chaos>. It is a strategically directed shake-up. It’s a way of thinking. It means taking nothing for granted.

It means being bold and taking some risk.

It means you are actually inventing a future in which you not only want to live … but one in which you can prosper.

Anyone in business worth even half a shit knows that the path to truly winning <and winning big> in business is to create new categories or subcategories rather than engaging in brand preference competition in established categories.

The idea of creating a new category, defining its dimensions and becoming its ‘definer’ <of which everyone else has to measure against> is where true success <financially> resides.

Sure. Many businesses need to engage in brand preference competition to retain their relevance and market position. But that is a defensive strategy. And, trust me, someone is going to go on the offensive at some point.

Anyway.

Disruption simply means ‘to challenge.’ And we all need to remember that disruption creates and is not simply to destroy. That doesn’t mean everything is all rosy if you get it right.

Technological disruption re-defines industries.

Cultural disruption always seems to piss people off.

Why?

Challenging people … and the status quo … can make people angry.

What do I say? Fuck ‘em.

Disruption by challenging the status quo improves culture. Is there conflict? You bet.

Does that conflict lead to a spark of energy? You bet. And from the spark comes improvement.

Look.

We are all disruptors. Just that some of us know it and some of us don’t.

—-

“We are all manufacturers – making good, making trouble or making excuses.”

=

HV Adolt

——-

Ok. Frankly. All that really matters despite all I babbled about <typed> … is you either choose to disrupt … or be disrupted.

In addition … the outside world seems to get crazier and crazier and more chaotic which encourages the majority of us to just hunker down and get shit done. It encourages us to not only NOT think about dreaming but even worse …“why dream? I just need to figure out a way of surviving.” It just doesn’t seem pragmatic to dream <note: it never has>.

All that said.

I have two thoughts today.

The first is the increasing importance of businesses to an individual’s dreams, and dreaming, and the second is just about dreaming itself.

Ok. The first.

I believe the business world is going to start playing an incredibly important role with regard to the future of dreaming. In fact. I believe the successful business organization of the future will be a ‘dream incubator’rather than the current, more pop culture popular, ‘purpose drive’ organization. And I say that as a ‘purpose driven organization’ believer.

Let me explain.

The outside world, as I have noted earlier, doesn’t really seem conducive to dreams and dreaming.

The inside world, your job and business Life, is becoming more and more focused on the daily grind and meeting the needs of the grind. In general we are getting squeezed but dreaming, in particular, is getting suffocated.

This means there is little space in-between the outside world and inside world for dreams and dreaming. This is where I believe business steps in and maybe sharpens its elbows and creates some space for individual people to remember having dreams can be good and dreaming can actually be a good thing. Businesses can step in and remind people that there is big value in pragmatism and personal responsibility in doing a good job AS WELL AS there may be an equal value in placing a dream or two within the pragmatic ‘do what you need to do’ Life … it kind of adds some rich & royal hues to what could be a duller palette.

Now.

Let me address the practical aspect of business and how the idea of ‘dream incubator’ can fit … because a shitload of shortsighted business people are going to suggest they have no desire to have their employees “dreaming” … they want them focused on doing their jobs.

Purpose was offered as a glue to hold together, and align, functional behavior <departments & responsibilities> of an organization while providing a deeper value to instill in attitudes & behavior. It certainly offered a version of a North Star from an ethical & moral standpoint but its true objective was to take the place of ‘vision’ in a pragmatic business world seemingly devoid of anything but functional outcome driven behavior.

Good intent. Good objective.

My belief of ‘dream incubator’ is less functional driven but rather attitudinally driven. My belief is that in a world in which dreaming is not being encouraged a business which encourages you to pursue your dreams WITHIN the business itself will be rewarded <attitudinally, functionally & profitability>.

My belief is that employees, in general, are not driven by their departmental function <which is actually more the ‘keep your head down and do what you need to do’ daily grind> but rather by their dreams — $, ideas, innovations and … well … let me suggest “perfection.”

<please note: this is a simplified version of a more complex organizational idea which I have shared elsewhere, in other words, I know there are more layers to this concept>

‘perfection.’

Some people dream of operational excellence. They get frustrated with politics and missteps and the normal inefficient behavior of a normal organization. These are the ones who offer up the zany process changes which, as a manager, you look at, screw up your face and think “Jesus Christ, what a mosh pit this would be to implement.” And, yet, these are the same zany changes which the organization most likely NEEDS to do to step up from where it is currently running.

$

It would be naïve to ignore the fact some employees are financially motivated and that their dreams are tied to more material aspects. They want money and things and your objective should be to inspire them to dream for more and be the organization which can enable their dreams to come true <within the construct of whatever is construed as ‘fair play’ within that organization>.

Ideas.

Some people dream of thinking … and thinking up ideas. Imagine a business which encourages the epe who like t come up with ideas actually helps their ideas come to Life … even if they do not directly apply to the business itself.

Huh?

Here is a secret a lot of good business people know. While we love to talk about focus and ‘staying in our lane’ and the danger of less-than-strategic expansion, the truth is that a business can accommodate a shitload of different lanes if they are actually good lanes <and good ideas>. I know when I managed groups while I needed people to focus on what they needed to do … I always encouraged them think about new ideas and talk to me about their ideas – even if it didn’t have shit to do with what we actually did to earn our living. Why did I do that? I could offer a dozen reasons but suffice it to say that it offers them a valuable sounding board for whether they have a viable idea or not <which they liked & appreciated> and I would get the brain working on non-related shit <which invariably gets you thinking about your related shit differently — and I liked that & appreciated it>.

Plus. People like thinking about their dreams even if they can’t actually do them.

Innovations.

I don’t need to say anything about this. This is obvious. The best innovations are usually a reflection of smart dreaming.

Ok. The second.

I believe we need to remind ourselves on occasion that it is okay to dream … and dream big. Remind ourselves that relentlessly pursuing a dream can be inspiring … not discouraging.

Now.

Being a big dreamer doesn’t mean that you walk around with your head in the clouds. It means that you have a purpose … a big purpose that makes your life bigger and fulfills some promise within you. Of course … as usual … the key is to find a balance. Think ground and clouds.

Maybe think about it as being pragmatic with no guardrails. A contradiction? Sure. But big dreams are a contradiction. As a practical relatively pragmatic human race we would never have them … unless some of them defied the odds and actually came true.

Yeah.

Some really do happen.

Anyway.

I like the thought of business accepting the role as a business incubator and actually re-energizing the human spirit toward dreams and dreaming.

I like the thought of a business being a ‘dream incubator’ is fulfilling a role life & society seem to be abdicating.

Look.

I have always been a huge proponent that business should accept a larger role in driving societal norms & mores and, in this case, I actually believe that in doing so the business acumen & success is rewarded.

Whew.

Can you imagine how many resumes a business would get if it said “we want you to make your lives extraordinary, help you make your dreams come true, because if you do … we believe our company will be extraordinary.”

Well. I have said this before … it seems like today’s world is tough on dreamers.

It is hard to be a dreamer and it seems to be easier and easier to blindly move down a beaten path <because you’ve been beaten up by Life>. By the way. This is not suggesting anyone is a “sheep.” It simply means Life is often a grind and as you make choices with regard to making Lie easier in some ways you simply choose the path most taken.

Regardless. We need to remind ourselves on occasion that it is okay to dream … and dream big and that relentlessly pursuing a dream can be inspiring <not discouraging>.

Now. Being a big dreamer doesn’t mean that you walk around with your head in the clouds. It means that you have a purpose … a big purpose that makes your life bigger and fulfills some promise within you.

Of course … as usual … the key is to find a balance. Think ground and clouds. Feet in the clouds and head on the ground. Pragmatic with no limits. A contradiction? Sure. But big dreams are a contradiction. As a practical relatively pragmatic human race we would never have them … unless some of them defied the odds and actually came true. Some really do happen.

Which reminds me <to remind everyone> that big dreams are things … not intangibles. They are not ‘becoming rich’ or ‘being a star’ … they are achieving greatness with an idea or a thought. Anyway. And while there should be a balance … there should be some big dream in all of us for a lot of reasons:

– Sense of Self.

Big dreams have a nice habit of increasing the size of your sense of self. You have to be careful it doesn’t become bigger than yourself and consume you … but big dreams remind you that you can make a big impact in some form or fashion. Maybe not today … but a hope of sometime. Big dreams can not only create some interesting self-purpose in life but it also reminds you that anyone, even you, is capable of the extraordinary. Even if it is just in thought.

————————————

“Be daring, be different, be impractical, be anything that will assert integrity of purpose & imaginative vision against the play-it-safers, the creatures of the commonplace, the slaves of the ordinary.“

Sir Cecil Beaton

————————————–

Maybe that is the biggest part of this ‘sense of self’ thought … it is likely the biggest reason why you wouldn’t want to settle on small dreams … does anyone really want to be a slave of the ordinary?

– Possibilities.

When you dream big things you will find new roads you may want to explore along the way. It is an adventure and sometimes extremely unpredictable and never ordinary. This is because big dreams can push limits of possibility <or what is possible> because it keeps the impossible in life in sight <if you can actually see something like impossible>. It all happens because big dreams are … well … not quantifiable. If they can be <in your head> I would suggest it is not really a dream but an objective or goal. A dream has to be so big it is just an idea … something difficult to put a number on it or a specific GPS coordinate. it is always somewhere on the horizon. And in reaching toward it the possibilities of new roads not taken <and never envisioned nor on any map as a matter of fact> increase significantly.

– Achieving stuff.

Yeah. You may not actually get the big one <the big dream> but typically if you dream big, you increase the odds you actually achieve something. It also increases the odds you actually achieve something relatively great in the scheme of things. In fact. You may even end up achieving more than you ever thought you could <even if it isn’t the big dream you began with>.

Big dreams are the reasons why the world changes … and becomes better. And I say ‘world’ as in if you define it in business … or in life. It’s the reason why there have been so many inventions, new ‘out of the box’ ideas, creations or whatevers. As a business guy I love this following quote for the business big dreamers:

————————-

“New business concepts are always, always the product of lucky foresight. That’s right – the essential insight doesn’t come out of any dirigiste planning process; it comes form some cocktail of happenstance, desire, curiosity, ambition and need. But at the end of the day, there has to be a degree of foresight — a sense of where new riches lie. So radical innovation is always one part fortuity and one part clearheaded vision.”

Gary Hamel, Leading the Revolution

——————–

New concepts inevitably come from one part clearheaded big dreaming.

Same with new ideas. Same with anything really new … and really big. Oh. And along the way a lot of good little stuff happens too.

– Your legacy <and big dreams>

Big dreams give you the opportunity to truly leave your mark on the world in several ways:

You achieve it.

You don’t achieve it <but achieve other shit along the way>.

You don’t achieve it <and it is left for someone else to achieve>.

The first.

The achieving one is obvious. It is satisfying and certainly something at the end of the road you will probably look back on with some satisfaction. I will mention though that most big dreamers update their dreams if they actually attain the original. You never really actually stop dreaming big <but do not tell anyone that>.

The second.

You don’t achieve it but along the road you have veered off on a variety of paths you encountered and did some good shit along the way. Your legacy is strewn with stuff you have left behind. I call this a ‘no regret’ life. You don’t really regret the missed ‘big dream’ cause you lived life doing stuff.

The third.

Oh. And not achieving the big dream … whew … what does happen to big dreams when a dreamer dies?

Here is the good news. A big dream never really dies. Only dreamers do. Someone else grabs it as their own. I think most big dreamers recognize his and are okay with it. Big dreams aren’t really meant to be owned by anyone in particular except Life. They can be achieved by someone <if they are lucky enough to figure out how to do it> but big dreams are visionary.

Some big dreams cannot be fulfilled within a single lifetime. But they are so inspiring that future generations <or someone in that generation> will strive to achieve it.

With all this talk about “content marketing” and “storytelling” I think it is important we discuss … well … boredom. And I don’t mean “you need to entertain” bullshit … I simply mean boredom. That said. Far too often I think we confuse a lack of attention, attention spans, or attention in general, with a hatred of boredom. I imagine I could say that this is simply about discussing two sides of the same coin.

One side is boredom.

One side is attention span.

Regardless of my imaginary coin … attention spans, in general, are certainly one of the main “topic du jours” a shitload of people, and ‘experts’, pontificate on espousing on “a generation borne of short attention spans” <using the infamous … “we have attention spans of a goldfish” — note: we do not …>. I have always said we do not have significantly shorter attention spans today than we have had in the past and that technology isn’t make us a society with an attention deficit <although technology does have other affects>.

That said … why doesn’t anyone ever discuss WHY our attention wavers?

Sure.

Many people, I included, have discussed relevance matters in gaining attention and maintaining attention and many people, I included, have discussed how interest and attention are inextricably linked … but why don’t we just simply talk about boredom?

Because if I am bored I will not pay attention.

Shit.

If a goldfish is bored, they will not pay attention.

Shit.

If you are bored enough <as the chart “structure of boredom” suggests you attain “demonic boredom” – this is the type of boredom which can make you say stupid things out loud>

Anyway.

Here is the flipside of the coin.

If you can keep me from being bored? You have my attention.

Personally … I hate being bored. Some people confuse this with a lack of ability to pay attention. They are wrong. People have my undivided attention and focus … if I am not bored with what is being said or shown.

I don’t think I am particularly unique in this.

I do know because of my hatred of boredom that I have quasi-mastered the art of ‘surface attention.’Surface attention?

What this is … is … well … let’s say you are in a meeting. And some bonehead is demanding you sit through a 75 page PowerPoint presentation.

I can guarantee you that I am gonna feel some hate <some boredom> within those 75 pages <and the 75+ words that must be said accompanying every page>. But that hate will not keep me from perking up on … well … say … page 51 where … well … you aren’t boring me.

And I have to admit. It is good that I have mastered this particular skill because F. Scott and I have something in common … I am a slave to my hatred of boredom.

Because outside of a meeting or some environment constricting my ability to flee my boredom … not only do I not pay attention but I move on. I actually will get away, if not actually flee, from boredom. I hate being bored so much I have been chastised for being rude <and sometimes it can also mistakenly be construed as some version of ‘self superiority’>.

I am neither rude nor do I believe I am smarter, or superior or better in any way … I am simply a slave to my hatred of boredom. In fact … as a parallel point … I will actively search out ‘non-boring.’ So … its not like I don’t want to hear what people have to say and i actually highly value other’s opinions, especially of they are contrarian views., but just as i am active n my pursuit for non-boredom i am also quite active in avoiding, and fleeing, actual boredom.

Maybe I don’t handle it as well as many other people but, once again, I just don’t think I am that unique. Given the opportunity I believe most of us schmucks would haul ass when bored by someone or something. In most cases it isn’t rooted in any thought that someone is ‘dumb’ or ‘an asshole/asshat’ … we are just fucking bored. I imagine my real point <and this would be great advice to professional marketers> is … well … if you want my attention don’t bore me.

Now.

This doesn’t mean ‘entertain me’ or ‘make me laugh’ or … well … any simplistic tripe many experts spout. Don’t overthink it. There is no formula. And there is no ‘one thing’ to do.

Just don’t bore me.

I don’t care how you do it.

You can engage me intellectually.

You can engage me by … well … being engaging.

You can engage me by making me smile.

You can engage me by tapping into my inner altruism.

You can engage me by tapping into my sense of responsibility.

The list of how to engage someone is relatively infinite.

But one thing circumvents the infinite list of possibilities … boredom.

I am a slave to my hatred of boredom.

And while I may hate boredom a little more than the average everyday schmuck … in general … I tend to believe most everyone hates being bored.

Well.

There is some professional advice.

Don’t be boring and don’t bore people you have an interest in communicating with.

“Almost everyone will make a good first impression, but only a few will make a good lasting impression.”

=

Sonya Parker

————

Well.

First impressions don’t matter. Ok. Maybe that was a little harsh. Let me suggest that final impressions are arguably more important than first impressions.

No. let me try that again.

Let me say I believe that final impressions are more important than first impressions.

I am fairly sure that I have always thought this and have continuously balked at the ‘make a good first impression’ emphasis throughout my career <and Life>. But I would say this thought has become more tangible as I have gained more & more experience.

Now.

I will also say that all impressions matter. First, middle & last. However … most typically we judge our experiences based on what we experience last and not what happened at the beginning. We most often judge based on the last impression imprinted upon our perceptions & beliefs <this is extremely important if you care about memory recall>.

The last impression puts a period <question mark, exclamation point, comma, etc.> on the totality.

Or.

The last impression can be the pin that pops the balloon of value you created throughout the experience.

Or.

The last impression can provide the ellipsis … <pun intended> … the suspension point offering hope for more.

And while I am focused on last impressions I don’t want to totally diminish a first impression nor ignore the fact that it is really, and truly, more about a compilation/summary of impressions.

I will say we talk a shitload about how first impressions matter to us a lot in our lives <to us and for us> seemingly ignoring that we are actually evaluating things all the time.

Look. Think about it. If you start off on the wrong foot … is there really no chance of recovery?

<of course there is>

If you start poorly … are you doomed to fail?

<of course not>

I could easily argue that 90% of the time I can overcome a bad first impression. I could easily argue that first impressions maybe get you in the game <I say maybe> … but last impressions are … well … the last.

Oh. In addition. Let’s be clear <continuing to make my point>. Regardless of ‘good first impression’ or ‘bad first impression’ … there is always the last impression.

Shit.

There are first impressions, middle impressions and last impressions.

There is even some guy who argues that when creating a message, in totality, you can leave the best impression if you have a slow start and conclude great <he calls it his ‘sailboat chart’>.

<while I agree conceptually … I would argue this is not a particularly healthy strategy>

I have written about the importance of last impressions using marketing as an example as well Life.

Like it or not … pretty much all the time we are being evaluated through this wacky thing called heuristics. Lets call them ‘personal value cues’ <please don’t call them personal branding cues which is different> And we give these cues all the time … and they scream at the top of their lungs even if you aren’t looking at them. Even worse? You can even be silent and be giving a ‘value in self’ <character> cue.

For example.

Bach was a master of ‘negative space’ … building masterful musical combinations … he also used silences that are as eloquent and thought provoking as notes, tempo and syncopation.

<I used Bach because creating impressions is like composing a symphony>

Well. If you think really hard about that … well … this sucks. This means pretty much everything you do, you don’t do, you say, you don’t say … matters. This means pretty much everything you do, you don’t do, you say, you don’t say … creates some impression. This means pretty much everything you do, you don’t do, you say, you don’t say … creates ‘perceived value of you’ in others eyes.

<note: I am fairly sure that offers up every action, and non action, to say that pretty much just showing up, whatever you do, matters>

In fact … it reminds me of something I read:

———-

“The world is not as simple as we like to make it out to be. The outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count. Nothing is really truly black or white and bad can be a disguise for good or beauty … and vice versa without one necessarily excluding the other.

Someone can both love and betray the object of its love … without diminishing the reality of the true feelings and value.

Life and business <whether we like to admit it or not> is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting where all frontiers are artificial <therefore unique is basically artificial in its inevitable obseletion> where at any moment everything can either end only to begin again … or finish suddenly forever … like an unexpected blow from an axe.

Where the only absolute, coherent, indisputable and definitive reality … is death. We have such little time when you look at Life … a tiny lightning flash between two eternal nights.

Everything has to do with everything else.

Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.”

Arturo Perez Revarte

————

That all maybe too poetic in discussing something like creating impressions and creating value but simply put … “everything has to do with everything else.”

Suffice it to say … the first impression impacts the last impression … or at least how the last is viewed. And this means people view in totality <not just first impression> and the last has higher value than the first.

In addition … the outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count.

That is why I shiver when I hear ‘its all about making a great first impression.

The outlines of how to create an impressions are often vague … but … suffice it to say the details count.

Shit.

Everything counts in terms of making an impression.

Sure … a carefully crafted first impression that makes you stand out or make you distinct is clearly a good thing and … well … insures you get listened to. Basically, it insures you are in the game.

But, remember, this whole ‘creating an impression’ discussion is really about that wacky thing called ‘value.’

I hesitate to call anything to do with self and how people look at you as ‘value’ but if you strip away all the politically correct ‘feel good’ bullshit … people assess you for what value you will provide them <friendship, commonalities, smarts, experience, etc.>. And, if you are not careful … how you present yourself can send a different value, or price, cue than who you really are <or the value you want to portray>.

That is misaligned messaging <including non verbal cues into the messaging header>. And misaligned is bad <that is a Bruce-ism>. Particularly if the kind of impression you want to create is important to you.

Anyway.

Here is the thing about impressions … damned if you do … damned if you don’t. What I mean is that you gotta ‘play’ <actively engage>if you want to make an impression because even if you don’t … you make an impression. You gotta let the chips fall as they may … “my last impression may suck … it may just not be as good as my first impression but ‘give me the ball coach and let me play’” has to be your attitude. I, personally, espouse “go big or go home” but it is more important that you figure out how you want t play … and play.

Ok.

One last thought on last impressions. In today’s world … I included <because I am writing this damn post> … we are often quick to judge off of outcome. This is the good news with regard to my “last impressions are the only thing that matters” belief. Our last impression is often the tangible. The output and the outcome.

Should it be? Sure.

<I guess>

But it is quite possible that the last impression judged should be ‘the measure of the person.’ And it is with that thought where the whole concept of ‘the first impression is most important’ falls apart … while our first impressions are frequently based upon instincts, impulse, intuitions and emotions; they are also built on our doubtful beliefs, not all are rational thought or fact-based evidence.

I sat that because, well, first impressions inherently suck at assessing & providing the ‘full measure’ of a person. The truth is that it is the last impression permits you to assess the ‘full measure of the person.’

The full measure assesses those who chose to play the full game. Win, lose or draw. Whether the game was thrust upon them or they thrust themselves upon the game … the ones who step up every day and every moment.

===

“They call me observant.

That’s not particularly true.

People are so easy to read – we bleed emotions even in the way we drink our coffee.

No one seems to notice though.

They’re all too busy drinking their own damn coffee. “

onlyjustabrokensmile

===

Giving the ‘full measure’ of someone demands that we not only bleed emotions as we bleed impressions but that we force people to stop drinking their own coffee to watch us bleed.

Inevitably that means the last impression is an impression of someone’s character more than value offered, and provided.

That’s why last impressions count the most.

Because it ain’t the first impression that matters … it is the last.

Because what lasts is the “measure of the person.” In my mind I want to make sure the last impression equals the true measure of who & what I am.

“It is the moment when what was chaos is now seen as having a center of gravity. There is a shape where a moment ago there was none.”

—-

Peter Elbow

=====================

“If one shifts the center of gravity of life out of life into the “Beyond” – into nothingness – one has deprived life as such of its center of gravity.”

―

Friedrich Nietzsche

===================

Well.

Given the recent study showing 42 people have the same wealth as maybe 50% of the world’s population I thought I would republish this awesome study completed in late 2010 called “Global Economy’s Shifting Centre of Gravity.”

Ok.

Maybe not awesome to some people … but to me? Fascinating reading <I actually read it over a vacation sipping some cocktails>.

Here is the net:

In 1980 the global economy’s center of gravity was somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.

In 2010 the center of gravity shifted to just east of Helsinki/Bucharest latitude (oddly the longitude doesn’t seem to vary much over time in this modeling).

In 2049 the center of gravity will shift almost two-thirds of the earth’s radius from the 1980 center to somewhere say in west Asia.

What the heck does his have to do with wealth inequality? Well. Because wealth is accumulating on 2 dimensions – on both the y axis as well as the x axis <just not at the same rate>.

Let’s just say that the x axis is shifting upwards globally <average wealth of global individual is improving>. This is good. This means the overall tide is rising.

Let’s just say that the people on the y axis are disproportionately reaping the benfis of a better global wealth improvement. That is bad. This means few continue to benefit at the overall expense of the many <yes, people will haggle with how I worded that>.

All that said … I would envision most people wouldn’t be surprised by this. But I am fairly sure we talk about the y axis all the time and forget to mention the x-axis … that’s my point here.

Anyway. There are some nuances to the study I mentioned that should make people think a bit.

Don’t panic.

I am not going to go into the modeling analytics … but suffice it to say this researcher at The London School of Economics knows his shit and figured out a way to analyze economic power not by clustering <which is an important distinction> but rather center of gravity <it’s kind of like figuring out how to measure the dynamic behavior of spatial economic distribution rather than simplistic clustering>. The study offered truly fascinating cylindrical spatial global maps in which it is almost like viewing an economic holographic image.

I will spare you. What I won’t spare you is what this analytic stuff means.

Suffice it to say that the income dynamics of the average location of the planet’s economic activity is shifting.

I think we all knew this in our gut but now we have actual proof. And it’s kind of sobering proof for those of us in the Western hemisphere <I include South America, Latin America and North America into this pot of people. That global economic activity moves east in this graphic fashion shows the rapid growth in incomes going to the large chunks of humanity who live in India, Africa, China and the rest of East Asia.

<note: population itself changes much more gradually therefore this sharp east-directed rise of the rest is not driven by population growth>

Overall this shift is a reflection of a lot of good things happening in the world <not America getting weaker but rather America becoming a smaller larger global component>. For example 600 million people have been lifted from extreme poverty – a large and rapid improvement in the well-being of humanity that is unprecedented in the history of this planet.

And there is more is to come. In particular, Africa and China will remain growth areas <albeit both in different ways> and poverty will continue to be eradicated.

Now.

All of this could be concerning in a variety of ways.

First.

This isn’t just about money, or income, this is about power. Economic shifts lead to governmental shifts … and intellectual shifts.

Yeah. Mind power. Sorry folks … it isn’t democracy <or any real ‘freedom of’ … although some people may debate the cause/effect of that relationship>. When economic shift permits an elevation of intellectual power that tends to be the formula for sustained shift in economical gravitational pull. I even have an example on economic opportunity … and economic opportunity lost.

We have faced a similar foundational economic re-construct situation before … only to have the economic center of gravity remain skewed toward the western hemisphere. And although the economic center of gravity was threatened at that time … there wasn’t the intellectual shift attached to the economic shift to sustain the movement.

Let’s look back at the last time we may have faced something like this.

The cold war. Soviet Union versus United States <actually … the rest of the world>. The reality is that while Russia tried to fill the void <of prosperity … or maybe better said … ‘better than what is’> and sought to increase its global engagement under the guise of government doctrine it was actually an economic battle. Huh? Think people labor versus capitalism <simplistic but you get the point>. Russia was certainly good at destroying governments and economic construct. However, because of their economic corruption they were unsuccessful in replacing what they destroyed.

Ultimately that was their failure … not a failure of communism but a failure of economy. Which, in the end, meant their failure to sustain an economic shift translated into the fact intellectual power was never maximized.

I promise you that mistake will not happen again. In fact it is happening all over again <not Russia but Eastern Hemisphere & Africa> but … but this economic shift is being sustained. There are two <to me> primary locations pulling the center of gravity. And I will outline each <and why we in the western hemisphere should sit up and pay attention>.

The two? China & Africa <some people may argue India>.

China.

They don’t necessarily destroy. In fact they do the opposite. They simply take less than successful scenarios and through economic success makes each … well … more successful.

Ok. There is a point here. What most Americans <let’s say ‘outsiders’ in general> fail to see is the “more successful” part. Many people measure success off of what we have <or how high is up>. In fact it is through those eyes that we tend to damn China.

Take a step back.

As Mao suggested for China … success would be enabling the majority to afford another pair of shoes. Not a mansion … heck … not even a house … just another pair of shoes … for a gazillion people. And he did it. And China has continued to grow.

Sure. It becomes more difficult from there. But that’s not the point. Other ‘industrialized’ countries measure them in a different way and are being foolish by doing so. China is being successful <for a number of reasons> but because they have taken what they have done well internally within their own country <helped a segment make the next step up> and go elsewhere and offer the same opportunity. They are creating an infrastructure within emerging countries, and emerging economies, <outside of China> to ‘be better than what is.’

In Africa it is transportation and communication interface. In southeast Asia its internal infrastructure.

China is becoming an enabler rather than a destroyer.

In Africa the picture continues to improve.

Wars have subsided and governments have stabilized and they are also adopting their own quasi capitalist-communist economic attitude, i.e., private subsidized by government. Their average GDP has consistently grown almost 5% annually. Over the past 8 years over 80 million households have been elevated above poverty level – to a level where discretionary spending commences in the household. Telecommunications, banking and retailing is flourishing.

This reflects a significant rise in the African urban consumer. In 1980 28% of Africans lived in an urban environment and today over 40% do. In countries where infrastructure is isolated, typically in more urban environments, this means that a more significant portion of the population has access to education, skills development and jobs <note: remember my point on mind power>. In addition, African governments are increasingly adopting policies to maintain the economic growth as they privatize state-owned businesses, open lines of trade <foreign>, strengthen legal systems and provide well needed physical & social infrastructure (a byproduct of that last factor is an increased labor force and economic distribution among the population).

So.

Having used those examples maybe I am maybe actually suggesting the bigger thought is a new communist-capitalism attitude shifting the economic center of gravity <I am erring on the side in my point of view that USA isn’t doing something wrong but rather that others are doing something well>.

I do find it impressive that traditional & evolving governments have attained this balance of communism embracing capitalism. Historically, the two are ideologically irreconcilable. Yet even the traditional communist based governments are proving to be quite pragmatic in supporting pro-growth economic policies <by non traditional communist means>.

China unapologetically clings to communism in every other sense of government policy. A number of more dictatorial based governments in Africa. Everyone should note it is Africa’s more quickly growing economies, characterized by low, stable business tax rates, responsible government spending, reasonable levels of regulation and incentives for business expansion, which certainly represent the highest growth opportunities.

As a result, their economies are expanding, businesses are thriving …. and maybe more importantly … the population is gaining a better way of living.

Once again … in my words … better than what they had.

Yes.

It is interesting to me that it is the economies of communist <or communist like> governments are thriving due to capitalism and responsible pro-growth economic policies. America has taught them well. And because of all that we are seeing a shift in the economic center of gravity.

Anyway.

Sorry. I digressed.

Getting back to the center of gravity. This study reflects how we should be looking at things. Millions of millions of people in developing countries are becoming more wealthy.

Exorbitantly? Nope.

Wealthier? Yes.

Simply moving all developing countries <or the majority … call it a ‘large mass’> to non-poverty from poverty is a massive shift. And by doing so it enables that population to be more productive. More healthy. More educated. More knowledgeable. This is simple shit. But we in the ‘industrialized world’ get caught up in the wrong issues … we assess success by where we are today .. <silly silly people>.

Ok.

Be careful with what I say next.

While USA focuses on government constitutional aspects and “enhancing their constitutional situation” … China is focused on economy.

Now.

I am a HUGE freedom of guy. But. If you want to grow and expand your government/country/culture more … a good economy is a really good thing. But having a realistic point of view on economy is an even better thing. Maybe if we look at the shifting economic center of gravity here in the western hemisphere we shouldn’t look at it as a loss of stature but rather maybe we should seek to gain some learning.

Is this post a message to our government and regulators? Nope.

This is a message to you & I that we have it pretty good here in the good ole USofA.

Is it as good economically as it was? Nope. Is it good? Yup.

This is a message to you & I that people in other countries also want their version of ‘self actualization’ and if economically it comes within grasp … they will try and grab it.

This is not a warning or threat but a suggestion this is an attitude issue for ‘we the people.’ Because with the right attitude then we can create the right behavior. But that is my next economic article. A rant on the everyday American’s economic behavior <because other cultures aren’t as addicted to spending & having stuff as we are>.

In the end.

The economic center of gravity was always going to be tugged away from America as the sheer numbers of the ‘rest of the world’ starting generating … well … economy. However, America needs to remember that at the core of economic gravity is not making shit … its mind power. The smarter the population, the healthier the population and, therefore, the more productive the population.

“To quote a British observer of us from some years ago, bear with us, once we have exhausted all possible alternatives, the Americans will do the right thing.”

———–

James Mattis

================

Well.

Throughout my life & career I have crisscrossed the country walking into mechanic shops, retail stores, supermarkets, numerous hotels/motels/inns and bars & restaurants.

I went to a public high school with a mostly agriculture student attendance and went to a college where the Crips and Hoover Family Blood patrolled the edges of the campus <and had a gang member stabbed 75 times in the alley behind my off campus apartment>.

In addition, I have received glimpses into the lives of Americans, rural/suburban/urban, behind the one way mirrors of research and face-to-face… in rural West Virginia & Kentucky, Wyoming, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, New York, California, New Mexico, Colorado and … well … pick your home and I have had a glimpse of your life.

I have met the least educated and the most educated <and you most likely would be surprised at how alike they are behind the façade of education> and felt hopeless at the hopelessness of some and found hope in the stories of those who had so much ‘no quit’ in them I felt less than worthy of my own efforts in Life.

I would suggest that what we all have in common in America is maddening. It is the fact we will exhaust all possible alternatives … and then, in most cases, do the right thing.

Love it or hate it … that is what we Americans do.

We are a stubborn folk we Americans. But I tend to believe the ‘exhausting all our alternatives’ is simply the same gauntlet we run time and time again … “I” to “we”.

What? Almost every single person when pushed into a corner <”no one puts Baby into a corner” type attitude> will defend what is possibly the most tried & true American ideal that every American in every corner of the country can pull out of their hip pocket – individual freedom. Freedom to think what I think, freedom to pray like I want to pray, freedom to say what I want to say, freedom to own a gun if I want, freedom to watch, do or go where I want.

Everything begins there.

That is the entrance to the gauntlet. And unlike Dante’s entrance to Hell which says “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate” — most frequently translated as “abandon all hope, ye who enter here” — the American entrance says “this way to something better.”

However, I feel compelled to point out that no matter how much you gussy up a gauntlet … it is still a gauntlet and while it may have some pretty pictures on the walls of the tunnel you are still gonna get the crap kicked out of you.

We don’t take the easy path. That’s just what we do. Despite the fact we talk about common sense or “the simplest is the best” incessantly … America inherently explores all and any alternatives, no matter how painful, until we arrive at what is right.

Mattis reminded me of this.

We never make it easy.

I will note Trump may add a painful dynamic to this characteristic but even without him … we exhaust ourselves as we exhaust all alternatives.

Here is the good news. Our history resides with arriving, ultimately, at the right thing. The arc of our gauntlet tunnel curves toward ‘doing the right thing’ versus ‘doing the wrong thing.’

I imagine my thought for today is twofold.

First is that there is no one person, or class of people, or type of person which ultimately places us in this ‘right thing’ place. This one place is arrived at by the fruits of labor of the many — out of many, one.

The second is that far too often we refer to the ‘many’, people, in demeaning or diminishing terms. We look at people who don’t think the way we do, people who voted for someone else or people who want to do something different than what we want to do as ‘stupid’ or ‘idiots’ or ‘ignorant.’ I can honestly say, having traveled the far corners of America, I would suggest we should maybe see other people as ‘good hearted’ or ‘well intended’ or ‘knows things I don’t know.’

I would also suggest that most people are willing to listen if you are respectful enough to listen to them.

I would also suggest that most people have a story and that story impacts how they think about things and how they decide what should be done with … well … “the we.”

Most people enter the gauntlet with an “I” perspective … even those who fully understand that we are a greater “we.”

We do so because we are part of America which is built upon individual freedoms and each of us value our personal choice. Amusingly <painfully so> it is that individual freedom which permits us the excruciating good conflict that not all the other “I’s” view their individual freedoms the same way. Therefore, the gauntlet is alternative after alternative in which we are painfully bludgeoned into understanding that the “I” makes some compromises for the greater “we”. In addition … we go through the excruciating painful conflict which permits us to see 99% of the other ‘many’ have good hearts, are not really idiots and know shit that we do not know.

We enter the gauntlet as an “I” and come out with a larger respect for the “we.” And it is that gauntlet which hones all the other alternatives into the one alternative which is ‘the right thing.’

Sometimes it helps to remind myself of this.

It helps especially when it doesn’t feel that way … especially when the Warrior Monk, James Mattis, is forced to say it out loud to non-Americans. Because, in my mind, just the fact he has to say it means that we all need to be reminded of it. And, maybe most importantly, as we think about this man … and his words … it permits us to reject the entire concept of “abandon hope all ye who enter” with all of us already who are in this concept called “America.”

Yeah.

It feels painful now. It feels more difficult than it has to be. It feels like there is even less alignment than maybe we had even a year ago.

But maybe it just feels like we are exploring all the alternatives along our way to exhaust all of them n our pursuit to the inevitable – Americans will do the right thing.

Good thought for the day. Well, at least, that is my thought for the day.